Case law

Horn v. State

13 Okla. Crim. 354 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 5, 1917

In rebuttal, the state introduced witnesses on each propo- ' sition, the testimony of whom tended to establish the fact that Christie was a peaceable, law-abiding man, and that the plaintiff in' error was an overbearing, … Intelligent men take newspaper accounts as current news, liable to qualification, explanation, or contradiction, and, when qualified, explained, or contradicted, they change their opinions or belief accordingly as a matter

Kissick v. State

504 P.2d 889 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 13, 1972

In finding that as a matter of law the defense of entrapment was established, reversing the conviction in State v. … In the instant case, defendant clearly established his defense of entrapment and the trial court should have sustained defendant’s demurrer and motion to dismiss after both sides rested.

State v. Dickson

332 P.2d 1109 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 10, 1958

There are well established exceptions to this fundamental right. … It is well established that in order to benefit from our statutes securing a speedy trial, the accused must demand trial; if he does not make such demand he waives his right.

Spivey v. State

69 Okla. Crim. 397 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 13, 1940

These provisions do not qualify or change the rule of the common law requiring that an indictment must be found on legal and competent evidence. … It is clearly sufficient and the trial court did not err in overruling the demurrer thereto.

GLOSSIP v. STATE

2023 OK CR 5 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 20, 2023

. ¶23 Clearly, the affidavits contain claims that were known, or could have been developed earlier with reasonable diligence. … The notes do not clearly have an amount of money. There is no factual basis for this part of the claim.

Moore v. State

788 P.2d 387 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jan 17, 1990

Appellant first claims the trial court erred in qualifying Ms. Davis as an expert witness. A witness may be “qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education...” 12 O.S.1981, § 2702. … Clearly, Oklahoma’s death penalty scheme does not fall within such a prohibition.

Pavatt v. State

159 P.3d 272 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 8, 2007

We have rejected such categorical claims of "harmless-error immunity" in the past. See Stemple v. State, 2000 OK CR 4, ¶¶ 70-76 , 994 P.2d 61, 74 . … Even assuming that Appellant could establish authorship of the letters, he was still required to establish (1) that a reasonable person in the author's position would not have made the statements if they were not true, and

Brown v. State

506 P.2d 1396 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 2, 1973

The prosecutor's sworn testimony was essentially limited to a statement that he had examined David Hamberlin's back two days after the defense witness's examination and *1399 had observed clearly visible injuries. … Sweat, 242 Miss. 646 , 136 So.2d 580 (1962), the prosecutor was not considered qualified to testify. See also: Bennett v. Commonwealth, 234 Ky. 333 , 28 S.W.2d 24 (1930); and Frank v.

West v. State

24 Okla. Crim. 225 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Aug 18, 1923

The latter provision would require also that the pros- *233 edition of said offense should be by the duly qualified officers of the state chosen for said purpose. … “The statute clearly establishes a rule to make effective the foregoing constitutional provisions.

Cohee v. State

942 P.2d 211 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jul 2, 1997

We simply found that the petitioners failed to establish that they were entitled to extraordinary relief. … This new role could break down the cloak of judicial immunity. Nothing in our Constitution nor our statutes allows this Court to enact such broad legislation.

Deason v. State

576 P.2d 778 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 28, 1978

John Weiser was called and qualified by the defense as an expert in the field of handguns. … He contends that this clearly means that he must serve his entire term in the State penitentiary at McAlester.

Robinson v. State

255 P.3d 425 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 21, 2011

T7 This Court has not always clearly related the standard under which it reviewed erroneous denial of peremptory challenges. … The error in Golden was egregious and clearly required relief.

Morehead v. State

12 Okla. Crim. 62 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 14, 1915

Unquestionably the juror Kissinger was clearly incompetent to sit as a juror in the case, and as the defendant exhausted all of his peremptory challenges, we must hold that the error in overruling the challenge was prejudicial … No fixed measure of time or distance from the main occurrence can be established as a rule to determine what shall be a part of the res gestae.

Ashinsky v. State

780 P.2d 201 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Sep 15, 1989

We find that Appellant has failed to establish any of the criteria required for admissibility under this rule or that “Monk” was a real person. … The record does not support a finding that the alleged informant, Jessie Favier, provided evidence against Appellant for pay or for immunity from punishment.

Caples v. State

3 Okla. Crim. 72 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 18, 1909

So this clause of the Constitution clearly does not require an information to begin with “The State of Oklahoma.” … Evidence may be clearly inadmissible for one purpose, and the same evidence may. be entirely proper for another purpose.

Tudor v. State

14 Okla. Crim. 67 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jul 30, 1917

At the trial he interposed a defense of alibi and introduced a number of witnesses to establish the fact that he was in Guymon upon the night of the theft and was there all night. … All of the jurors complained of, except probably one, were qualified under, the doctrine declared by this court in many cases, the last being Horn v. State, decided at the May term of the court, 13 Okla.

Ex Parte Crump

10 Okla. Crim. 133 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 4, 1913

"In case of impeachment of the Governor, or of his death, failure to qualify, resignation, removal from the state, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the office, the said office, with its compensation, shall … Thus, also, the Constitution has established the interpretation of the word `vacancy' to be, as used in it, that it means either permanent or temporary. The cause and the reason go together.

Barnett v. State

64 O.B.A.J. 1565 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 18, 1993

Sloan’s testimony was short and limited to establishing that Lisa Enbo-den and Tom Sloan had lived together and that Tom Sloan owned a green Malibu. … In exchange for her testimony she was granted partial immunity as to the crimes of accessory to murder and arson. . See Berget v.

STATE v. RUSSELL

2026 OK CR 15 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 16, 2026

Whatever else Section 1053(6) encompasses, it clearly allows a State to appeal when the remedy of suppression or exclusion is applied by the trial court after finding a violation of some right guaranteed by the Constitution … Quarles , 467 U.S. 649, 655 (1984). ¶10 Russell lists eight factors he contends established that he was in custody at the time he was asked and answered questions while standing on his own lawn during the execution of the

Jones v. State

134 P.3d 150 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 24, 2006

State, 2006 OK CR 7, ¶ 37, n. 10 , 130 P.3d at 295, n. 10 . *159 In other words, if all one has to do in order to establish prejudice in the denial of a cause challenge (as with Juror P.), is show some juror (Juror C.) served … But this reason is meaningless, for the great majority of death-qualified capital jurors could be described as favoring the death penalty (to varying degrees).